Yahoo! Inc. v. Bill Edwards a/k/a
1Ssteriods.com
Claim
Number: FA0508000535429
Complainant is Yahoo! Inc. (“Complainant”), represented
by David M. Kelly of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., 901 New York Avenue, NW, Washington,
DC, 20001-4413. Respondent is Bill Edwards a/k/a 1Ssteriods.com (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 459, Austin, TX,
78704.
REGISTRAR
AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The
domain names at issue are <yahooosports.com>, <ahoosports.com>,
<auctionsshoppingyahoo.com>, <baseballyahoo.com>,
<bcyahoo.com>, <fantasysportsyahoo.com>, <fantasysports-yahoo.com>,
<fantasy-sports-yahoo.com>, <financemessagesyahoo.com>,
<financialsyahoo.com>, <financialyahoo.com>, <footballfantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<footballyahoo.com> <gamesdomainyahoo.com>,
<homepageyahoo.com>, <launchyah00.com> <mailyah00.com>,
<matchyahoo.com>, <moneyyahoo.com>,
<musiclaunchyahoo.com>, <profilesyahoo.info>,
<racingfantasysportsyahoo.com>, <sbbcyahoo.com>,
<sbccyahoo.com>, <sbcyah00.com>, <sbyahoo.com>,
<scyahoo.com>, <shopingyahoo.com>,
<stocksyahoo.com>, <stockyahoo.com>,
<storynewsyahoo.com>, <yaahoo-mail.com>,
<yah00finance.com>, <yah00sports.com>,
<yahhoosports.com>, <yahoocalandar.com>,
<yahoocalander.com>, <yahoo-e-mail.com>,
<yahoofantacyfootball.com>, <yahoofantasysport.com>,
<yahookalendar.com>, <yahoo-mial.com>, <yahoomsic.com>,
<yahoomuisc.com>, <yahooosports.com>,
<yahooports.com>,
<yahoosorts.com>, <yahoospots.com>,
<yahoosprts.com>, <yahoshopping.com>, <yehoosports.com>,
<yhoosports.com>,
<yohoosports.com>, <yahosports.com> and <yahoosprots.com> registered with Innerwise,
Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that
to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist
in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically August
5, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint August
8, 2005.
On
August 12, 2005, Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com confirmed by e-mail to
the National Arbitration Forum that the <yahooosports.com>, <ahoosports.com>,
<auctionsshoppingyahoo.com>, <baseballyahoo.com>,
<bcyahoo.com>, <fantasysportsyahoo.com>, <fantasysports-yahoo.com>,
<fantasy-sports-yahoo.com>, <financemessagesyahoo.com>,
<financialsyahoo.com>, <financialyahoo.com>, <footballfantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<footballyahoo.com> <gamesdomainyahoo.com>,
<homepageyahoo.com>, <launchyah00.com> <mailyah00.com>,
<matchyahoo.com>, <moneyyahoo.com>,
<musiclaunchyahoo.com>, <profilesyahoo.info>,
<racingfantasysportsyahoo.com>, <sbbcyahoo.com>,
<sbccyahoo.com>, <sbcyah00.com>, <sbyahoo.com>,
<scyahoo.com>, <shopingyahoo.com>,
<stocksyahoo.com>, <stockyahoo.com>,
<storynewsyahoo.com>, <yaahoo-mail.com>,
<yah00finance.com>, <yah00sports.com>,
<yahhoosports.com>, <yahoocalandar.com>,
<yahoocalander.com>, <yahoo-e-mail.com>,
<yahoofantacyfootball.com>, <yahoofantasysport.com>,
<yahookalendar.com>, <yahoo-mial.com>, <yahoomsic.com>,
<yahoomuisc.com>, <yahooosports.com>,
<yahooports.com>,
<yahoosorts.com>, <yahoospots.com>,
<yahoosprts.com>, <yahoshopping.com>,
<yehoosports.com>, <yhoosports.com>, <yohoosports.com>,
<yahosports.com> and
<yahoosprots.com> domain names are registered with Innerwise,
Inc. d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of
the names. Innerwise, Inc. d/b/a
Itsyourdomain.com verified that Respondent is bound by the Innerwise, Inc.
d/b/a Itsyourdomain.com registration agreement and thereby has agreed to
resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with
ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On August 17,
2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding
(the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 6,
2005, by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@yahooosports.com; postmaster@ahoosports.com;
postmaster@auctionsshoppingyahoo.com; postmaster@baseballyahoo.com;
postmaster@bcyahoo.com; postmaster@fantasysportsyahoo.com;
postmaster@fantasysports-yahoo.com; postmaster@fantasy-sports-yahoo.com;
postmaster@financemessagesyahoo.com; postmaster@financialsyahoo.com;
postmaster@financialyahoo.com; postmaster@footballfantasysportsyahoo.com;
postmaster@footballyahoo.com; postmaster@gamesdomainyahoo.com;
postmaster@homepageyahoo.com; postmaster@launchyah00.com;
postmaster@mailyah00.com;
postmaster@matchyahoo.com; postmaster@moneyyahoo.com;
postmaster@musiclaunchyahoo.com; postmaster@profilesyahoo.info;
postmaster@racingfantasysportsyahoo.com; postmaster@sbbcyahoo.com;
postmaster@sbccyahoo.com; postmaster@sbcyah00.com; postmaster@sbyahoo.com;
postmaster@scyahoo.com; postmaster@shopingyahoo.com; postmaster@stocksyahoo.com;
postmaster@stockyahoo.com; postmaster@storynewsyahoo.com;
postmaster@yaahoo-mail.com; postmaster@yah00finance.com;
postmaster@yah00sports.com; postmaster@yahhoosports.com;
postmaster@yahoocalandar.com; postmaster@yahoocalander.com; postmaster@,yahoo-e-mail.com;
postmaster@yahoofantacyfootball.com; postmaster@yahoofantasysport.com; postmaster@yahookalendar.com;
postmaster@yahoo-mial.com;
postmaster@yahoomsic.com; postmaster@yahoomuisc.com;
postmaster@yahooosports.com; postmaster@yahooports.com; postmaster@yahoosorts.com;
postmaster@yahoospots.com; postmaster@yahoosprts.com;
postmaster@yahoshopping.com; postmaster@yehoosports.com;
postmaster@yhoosports.com;
postmaster@yohoosports.com; postmaster@yahosports.com; postmaster@yahoosprots.com by e-mail.
Having
received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum
transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
September 15, 2005, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon.
Carolyn Marks Johnson as Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the
"Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum discharged its
responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably
available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision
based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN
Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
response from Respondent.
Complainant
requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The domain names that Respondent
registered, <yahooosports.com>, <ahoosports.com>, <auctionsshoppingyahoo.com>,
<baseballyahoo.com>, <bcyahoo.com>, <fantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<fantasysports-yahoo.com>, <fantasy-sports-yahoo.com>,
<financemessagesyahoo.com>, <financialsyahoo.com>,
<financialyahoo.com>, <footballfantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<footballyahoo.com> <gamesdomainyahoo.com>,
<homepageyahoo.com>, <launchyah00.com> <mailyah00.com>,
<matchyahoo.com>, <moneyyahoo.com>,
<musiclaunchyahoo.com>, <profilesyahoo.info>,
<racingfantasysportsyahoo.com>, <sbbcyahoo.com>,
<sbccyahoo.com>, <sbcyah00.com>, <sbyahoo.com>,
<scyahoo.com>, <shopingyahoo.com>,
<stocksyahoo.com>, <stockyahoo.com>,
<storynewsyahoo.com>, <yaahoo-mail.com>,
<yah00finance.com>, <yah00sports.com>,
<yahhoosports.com>, <yahoocalandar.com>,
<yahoocalander.com>, <yahoo-e-mail.com>,
<yahoofantacyfootball.com>, <yahoofantasysport.com>,
<yahookalendar.com>, <yahoo-mial.com>, <yahoomsic.com>,
<yahoomuisc.com>, <yahooosports.com>,
<yahooports.com>,
<yahoosorts.com>, <yahoospots.com>,
<yahoosprts.com>, <yahoshopping.com>,
<yehoosports.com>, <yhoosports.com>, <yohoosports.com>,
<yahosports.com> and
<yahoosprots.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s
YAHOO! mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate
interests in the <yahooosports.com>, <ahoosports.com>, <auctionsshoppingyahoo.com>,
<baseballyahoo.com>, <bcyahoo.com>, <fantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<fantasysports-yahoo.com>, <fantasy-sports-yahoo.com>,
<financemessagesyahoo.com>, <financialsyahoo.com>,
<financialyahoo.com>, <footballfantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<footballyahoo.com> <gamesdomainyahoo.com>,
<homepageyahoo.com>, <launchyah00.com> <mailyah00.com>,
<matchyahoo.com>, <moneyyahoo.com>,
<musiclaunchyahoo.com>, <profilesyahoo.info>,
<racingfantasysportsyahoo.com>, <sbbcyahoo.com>,
<sbccyahoo.com>, <sbcyah00.com>, <sbyahoo.com>,
<scyahoo.com>, <shopingyahoo.com>, <stocksyahoo.com>,
<stockyahoo.com>, <storynewsyahoo.com>,
<yaahoo-mail.com>, <yah00finance.com>,
<yah00sports.com>, <yahhoosports.com>,
<yahoocalandar.com>, <yahoocalander.com>,
<yahoo-e-mail.com>, <yahoofantacyfootball.com>,
<yahoofantasysport.com>, <yahookalendar.com>,
<yahoo-mial.com>,
<yahoomsic.com>, <yahoomuisc.com>,
<yahooosports.com>, <yahooports.com>, <yahoosorts.com>,
<yahoospots.com>, <yahoosprts.com>,
<yahoshopping.com>, <yehoosports.com>,
<yhoosports.com>,
<yohoosports.com>, <yahosports.com> and <yahoosprots.com> domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the <yahooosports.com>,
<ahoosports.com>, <auctionsshoppingyahoo.com>, <baseballyahoo.com>,
<bcyahoo.com>, <fantasysportsyahoo.com>, <fantasysports-yahoo.com>,
<fantasy-sports-yahoo.com>, <financemessagesyahoo.com>,
<financialsyahoo.com>, <financialyahoo.com>, <footballfantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<footballyahoo.com> <gamesdomainyahoo.com>,
<homepageyahoo.com>, <launchyah00.com> <mailyah00.com>,
<matchyahoo.com>, <moneyyahoo.com>, <musiclaunchyahoo.com>,
<profilesyahoo.info>, <racingfantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<sbbcyahoo.com>, <sbccyahoo.com>,
<sbcyah00.com>, <sbyahoo.com>, <scyahoo.com>,
<shopingyahoo.com>, <stocksyahoo.com>,
<stockyahoo.com>, <storynewsyahoo.com>,
<yaahoo-mail.com>, <yah00finance.com>,
<yah00sports.com>, <yahhoosports.com>,
<yahoocalandar.com>, <yahoocalander.com>,
<yahoo-e-mail.com>, <yahoofantacyfootball.com>,
<yahoofantasysport.com>, <yahookalendar.com>,
<yahoo-mial.com>,
<yahoomsic.com>, <yahoomuisc.com>,
<yahooosports.com>, <yahooports.com>, <yahoosorts.com>,
<yahoospots.com>, <yahoosprts.com>,
<yahoshopping.com>, <yehoosports.com>,
<yhoosports.com>,
<yohoosports.com>, <yahosports.com> and <yahoosprots.com> domain names in
bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in
this proceeding.
Complainant,
Yahoo! Inc., is a global Internet communications, media and commerce company
that delivers a branded network of comprehensive searching, directory,
information, communication, shopping services and other online activities and
features to millions of Internet users daily.
Complainant
registered the YAHOO! mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) (Reg. Nos. 2,040,222 issued February 25, 1997; 2,187,292 issued
September 8, 1998; 2,403,227 issued November 14, 2000).
Respondent
registered the disputed domain names between February 2002 and January
2005. Respondent is using the disputed
domain names to redirect Internet users to websites featuring third-party links
that offer services that compete with those offered by Complainant.
Paragraph 15(a)
of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of
the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these
Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
In view of
Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
will draw such inferences as the Panel considers appropriate pursuant to
paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel
is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in
the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc.
v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000)
(holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable
inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see
also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson,
D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is
appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a)
of the Policy requires Complainant to prove each of the following three
elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or
transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and
is being used in bad faith.
Complainant
established with extrinsic proof in this proceeding that it has rights in the
YAHOO! mark through registration with the USPTO. See Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA
198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark
registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA
221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark
with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”).
The disputed
domain names that Respondent registered are confusingly similar to
Complainant’s YAHOO! mark. The disputed
domain names incorporate Complainant’s mark and deviate with the additions of
the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com,” numerous common terms, hyphens,
numbers and misspelled variations of Complainant’s mark. These additions to Complainant’s mark do not
distinguish the domain names pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Oki Data Ams., Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001) (“[T]he fact that a domain name wholly
incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish
identity or confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy despite the
addition of other words to such marks.”); see also Space
Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298
(eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where Respondent’s
domain name combines Complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious
relationship to Complainant’s business); see also Victoria’s Secret v. Zuccarini, FA
95762 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 18, 2000) (finding that, by misspelling words and
adding letters to words, a Respondent does not create a distinct mark but
nevertheless renders the domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s
marks); see also Oxygen Media, LLC v. Primary
Source, D2000-0362 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (finding that the domain name
<0xygen.com>, with zero in place of letter “O,” “appears calculated to
trade on Complainant’s name by exploiting [a] likely mistake by users when
entering the url address”); see also Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5,
FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“The addition of a hyphen to
Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of
overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis.”).
The Panel finds
that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant
established that it has rights to and legitimate interests in the mark
contained within the disputed domain names.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no such rights to or legitimate
interests in the disputed domain names.
When a complainant establishes a prima
facie case pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to the
respondent to prove that it has rights or legitimate interests. Due to Respondent’s failure to respond to
the Complaint, the Panel infers that Respondent does not have rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Do The Hustle, LLC v.
Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (finding that once the
complainant asserts that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to
provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name); see also
Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov.
28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the
complainant that the respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests is
sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that
such rights or legitimate interests do exist); see also Parfums Christian Dior v. QTR Corp., D2000-0023 (WIPO Mar.
9, 2000) (finding that by not submitting a response, the respondent has failed
to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name).
Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Panel concludes that Respondent has not established rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain names pursuant to Policy ¶
4(c)(ii). See Compagnie de Saint Gobain v. Com-Union Corp., D2000-0020 (WIPO
Mar. 14, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where respondent was
not commonly known by the mark and never applied for a license or permission
from complainant to use the trademarked name); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA
96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
because respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using
the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use); see also Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Webdeal.com, Inc.,
FA 95162 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that the respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in domain names because it is not commonly known
by the complainant’s marks and the respondent has not used the domain names in
connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use).
Furthermore,
Respondent is using the disputed domain names to operate websites featuring
commercial links to third-party websites.
Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of domain names that are
confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to third-party
websites for Respondent’s own commercial gain does not constitute a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is
not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec.
31, 2002) (finding that respondent’s diversionary use of complainant’s marks to
send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of
which linked to competitors of complainant, was not a bona fide offering
of goods or services); see also Yahoo!
Inc. v. Web Master, FA 127717 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 27, 2002) (finding that
the respondent’s use of a confusingly similar domain name to operate a
pay-per-click search engine, in competition with the complainant, was not a bona
fide offering of goods or services); see also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114
(D. Mass. 2002) (finding that, because the respondent's sole purpose in
selecting the domain names was to cause confusion with the complainant's
website and marks, its use of the names was not in connection with the offering
of goods or services or any other fair use).
The Panel finds
that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant
alleges that Respondent acted in bad faith in registering and using the
disputed domain names. Respondent
registered domain names containing confusingly similar versions of
Complainant’s well-known mark and did so for Respondent’s own commercial gain. Respondent’s domain names divert Internet
users searching under Complainant’s YAHOO! mark to Respondent’s commercial
website. The Panel infers that
Respondent receives click-through fees for diverting Internet users searching
for Complainant to third-party websites.
Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the disputed
domain names in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex
Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002) (finding that the
respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy
¶ 4(b)(iv) because the respondent was using the confusingly similar domain name
to attract Internet users to its commercial website); see also Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002)
(finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the
complainant’s mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the
respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the
respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶
4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster &
Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad
faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial
gain).
Furthermore,
Respondent used the disputed domain names, which contain Complainant’s YAHOO!
mark, to redirect Internet users to third-party websites featuring services
that compete with Complainant’s business.
This suggests that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s
rights in the mark when it registered the domain names and chose the disputed
domain names based on the goodwill Complainant has acquired in its YAHOO!
mark. Furthermore, Complainant’s
registration of the YAHOO! mark with the USPTO bestows upon Respondent
constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark. Respondent’s registration of domain names
containing Complainant’s mark in spite of Respondent’s actual or constructive
knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark is evidence of bad faith
registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA
94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith
includes actual or constructive knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of
registration); see
also Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger,
D2002-0187 (WIPO Apr. 24, 2002) (finding that because the link between the
complainant’s mark and the content advertised on the respondent’s website was
obvious, the respondent “must have known about the Complainant’s mark when it
registered the subject domain name”); see also Orange Glo Int’l v. Blume, FA 118313
(Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 4, 2002) (“Complainant’s OXICLEAN mark is listed on the
Principal Register of the USPTO, a status that confers constructive notice on
those seeking to register or use the mark or any confusingly similar variation
thereof.”).
The Panel finds
that Complainant satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having
established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes
that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it
is Ordered that the <yahooosports.com>, <ahoosports.com>, <auctionsshoppingyahoo.com>,
<baseballyahoo.com>, <bcyahoo.com>, <fantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<fantasysports-yahoo.com>, <fantasy-sports-yahoo.com>,
<financemessagesyahoo.com>, <financialsyahoo.com>,
<financialyahoo.com>, <footballfantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<footballyahoo.com> <gamesdomainyahoo.com>,
<homepageyahoo.com>, <launchyah00.com> <mailyah00.com>,
<matchyahoo.com>, <moneyyahoo.com>, <musiclaunchyahoo.com>,
<profilesyahoo.info>, <racingfantasysportsyahoo.com>,
<sbbcyahoo.com>, <sbccyahoo.com>,
<sbcyah00.com>, <sbyahoo.com>, <scyahoo.com>,
<shopingyahoo.com>, <stocksyahoo.com>,
<stockyahoo.com>, <storynewsyahoo.com>,
<yaahoo-mail.com>, <yah00finance.com>,
<yah00sports.com>, <yahhoosports.com>,
<yahoocalandar.com>, <yahoocalander.com>,
<yahoo-e-mail.com>, <yahoofantacyfootball.com>,
<yahoofantasysport.com>, <yahookalendar.com>,
<yahoo-mial.com>,
<yahoomsic.com>, <yahoomuisc.com>,
<yahooosports.com>, <yahooports.com>, <yahoosorts.com>,
<yahoospots.com>, <yahoosprts.com>,
<yahoshopping.com>, <yehoosports.com>,
<yhoosports.com>,
<yohoosports.com>, <yahosports.com> and <yahoosprots.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED
from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: September 26, 2005
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home
Page
National Arbitration Forum